Abstract
In a series of our previous papers we have investigated the influence of various variables on retention/migration of peptides in various high-performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) and pressurized planar electrochromatography (PPEC) systems. Here we present a correlation of the selectivity of peptide separation in similar, as well as in various HPTLC and PPEC systems investigated before. Our results show that the selectivity in similar HPTLC and PPEC systems is quite different. This results from the share of electrophoresis in separation of solutes by PPEC. The results suggest that combination of HPTLC and PPEC, with properly selected separation conditions (the same, or even better—different for each technique), may be used for efficient two-dimensional separation of peptides. The best separation can be obtained if PPEC is carried out in two opposite directions (toward the cathode and the anode) simultaneously.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The pH change of the mobile phase is the most common approach to fine tuning the selectivity of peptide separation in thin-layer chromatography/high-performance thin-layer chromatography (TLC/HPTLC). It is used for two-dimensional (2D) separation of both simple [1] and relatively complex peptide mixtures [2, 3]. Chromatograms are developed with an acidic mobile phase in one dimension, and with a basic mobile phase (of relatively similar composition) in the second dimension. However, as the influence of the mobile phase pH on retention of peptides is rather moderate [4], the difference in selectivity of two systems involved in 2D separation process is also limited. In result, most of the solute zones separated are located near the diagonal of the chromatographic plate [1,2,3]. Better change of separation selectivity can be obtained with the use of special chromatographic plates showing different properties of adsorbent for each dimension of separation. This is obvious, as the change of selectivity of separation depends mainly on the different properties of the adsorbent. Anyway, this approach requires preparation of the special adsorbent layer [5]. A much easier approach is to use overall inversion of separation system type—from normal phase (NP) to reversed phase system (RP) or vice versa [6]. This can be obtained with commercially available chromatographic plates of mixed properties of adsorbent (e.g. HPTLC RP-18 W plates from Merck). The mechanism of retention depends on the mobile phase composition; thus selectivity of peptide separation is strictly different for each dimension of 2D separation [6, 7].
Another way to obtain significant change of selectivity of peptide separation is the use of electric field to influence the selectivity. Combining TLC/HPTLC with planar/thin-layer electrophoresis [8,9,10] or electrochromatography [11] has been reported to provide very good 2D separation of complex mixtures of peptides, with clearly different selectivity for each dimension. Moreover, use of electromigration techniques enables to obtain much faster separation on a longer distance, than use of standard planar techniques (TLC/HPTLC). However, planar electrochromatography in an open system can also suffer some disadvantages, making the separation conditions unrepeatable. These are caused by: evaporation of the mobile phase (or its components), flux of the mobile phase to the surface of adsorbent layer (dispersion of solute zones being separated), and extensive Joule’s heat which is hard to control. All these disadvantages can be abolished, while using modern equipment for pressurized planar electrochromatography (PPEC) [12,13,14,15,16,17]. So PPEC seems to have sufficient potential and should be considered as an alternative for the other planar techniques used for separation of peptides.
In our previous papers we have presented detailed investigations concerning influence of particular variables on selectivity and efficiency of peptide separation in HPTLC [4, 6, 18, 19] and PPEC [4, 20] systems, under various conditions. The aim of this work was the correlation of the selectivity obtained using similar HPTLC and PPEC separation systems studied before and evaluation of potential utility of combination of these both techniques for 2D separation of peptides.
Experimental
Chemicals and Equipment
Ninhydrin (98%, analytical grade) was purchased from Fluka (Buchs, Switzerland). Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA, 99.5%, for biochemistry) was purchased from ACROS ORGANICS (Geel, Belgium). Formic acid (FA), ammonia, acetone, and methanol (all analytical grade) were provided by POCH (Gliwice, Poland). Glass-backed HPTLC RP-18 W plates were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Water used in all experiments was purified using HLP demineralizer from Hydrolab (Gdańsk, Poland). Horizontal DS-II-10 × 10 chambers for TLC were received from CHROMDES (Lublin, Poland). Prototype PPEC equipment, described elsewhere [21], was constructed in the Department of Physical Chemistry, Medical University of Lublin (Lublin, Poland). LINOMAT 5 semi-automatic TLC sampler, TLC Scanner 4, and TLC Visualizer with winCATS 1.4.8 software were provided by CAMAG (Muttenz, Switzerland). Liberty microwave automated peptide synthesizer was from CEM (Matthews, USA).
Peptide Standards
Synthetic peptide standards of the following sequences were used in experiments:
-
1.
Leu-Ile-Thr-Thr
-
2.
Asn-Ser-Tyr-Tyr
-
3.
Asp-Glu-Lys-Arg
-
4.
Ser-Lys-Arg
-
5.
Ser-Glu-Asp
-
6.
Ser-His-His
-
7.
Gly-Ala
-
8.
Gly-Leu-Ile
-
9.
Leu-Val-Val-Tyr-Pro-Trp-Thr
-
10.
Gly-Ala-Val-Ser-Thr-Ala—Necrofibrin
-
11.
Leu-Pro-Pro-Ser-Arg—Lymphocyte activating pentapeptide
-
12.
Tyr-Arg—Kyotorphin
-
13.
Ala-Pro-Gly-Pro-Arg—Eneterostatin
-
14.
c[Cys-Tyr-Phe-Gln-Asn-Cys]-Pro-Lys-Gly-NH2 (disulfide bridge between Cys1 and Cys6)—[Lys8] Vasopressin
-
15.
Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Leu-Arg-Lys-Tyr-Pro-NH2—β-neo-endorphin
-
16.
Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Met-Arg-Arg-Val-NH2—Adrenorphin
-
17.
Asp-Arg-Val-Tyr-Ile-His-Pro-Phe—Angiotensin II
-
18.
Arg-Pro-Pro-Gly-Phe-Ser-Pro-Phe-Arg—Bradykinin
-
19.
Arg-Pro-Lys-Pro-Gln-Gln-Phe-Phe-Gly-Leu-Met-NH2—Substance P
-
20.
Thr-Lys-Pro-Arg—Tuftsin
-
21.
Leu-Ile-Thr(p)-Thr(p) (Thr3 and Thr4 phosphorylated)
-
22.
Leu-Ile-Tyr(p)-Tyr(p) (Tyr 3 and Tyr4 phosphorylated)
Peptides: Leu-Ile-Thr-Thr, Asn-Ser-Tyr-Tyr, Asp-Glu-Lys-Arg, Ser-Lys-Arg, Ser-Glu-Asp, Ser-His-His, Gly-Ala, Gly-Leu-Ile, Leu-Val-Val-Tyr-Pro-Trp-Thr, Gly-Ala-Val-Ser-Thr-Ala, Leu-Pro-Pro-Ser-Arg, Tyr-Arg, Ala-Pro-Gly-Pro-Arg, were synthesized in the Department using Liberty microwave automated peptide synthesizer (CEM, Matthews, USA). Their identity was confirmed as described elsewhere [19]. Peptides: c[Cys-Tyr-Phe-Gln-Asn-Cys]-Pro-Lys-Gly-NH2, Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Leu-Arg-Lys-Tyr-Pro-NH2, Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Met-Arg-Arg-Val-NH2, Asp-Arg-Val-Tyr-Ile-His-Pro-Phe, Arg-Pro-Pro-Gly-Phe-Ser-Pro-Phe-Arg, Arg-Pro-Lys-Pro-Gln-Gln-Phe-Phe-Gly-Leu-Met-NH2, Thr-Lys-Pro-Arg, Leu-Ile-Thr(p)-Thr(p), Leu-Ile-Tyr(p)-Tyr(p), (purity ≥ 85%) were purchased from Lipopharm (Zblewo, Poland).
Chromatography and Electrochromatography of Peptides
Preparation of Chromatographic Plates
Before use, the chromatographic plates (10 × 10 cm for HPTLC and 20 × 10 cm for PPEC) were washed by dipping for 5 min in methanol. After that, they were dried at room temperature and activated in the oven at 105 °C for 15 min. Then they were stored in an desiccator. Additionally, for PPEC, edges of the plates were impregnated with special sealant as described elsewhere [22].
Application of Samples
The peptides were dissolved in the mixture composed of water/methanol (1/1 v/v) to obtain 1 µg µL−1 solutions. For HPTLC, 1 µL of each sample solution was applied 10 mm from the lower edge of the chromatographic plate as a spot with a diameter of 1 mm with aerosol applicator Linomat 5 at speed 70 nL s−1. Analogously, for PPEC—2 µL of each sample was applied 15 mm from the lower edge of the chromatographic plate as 2 × 1 mm bands.
Development of Chromatograms and Electrochromatograms
The chromatograms were developed at room temperature, using Horizontal DS Chamber for TLC, model DS-II-10 × 10 from CHROMDES (Lublin, Poland). Before development, the chromatographic plates were conditioned for 15 min in vapors of the mobile phase. The development distance was 8 cm from the origin.
The electrochromatograms were developed using PPEC equipment described elsewhere [21]. Before development, the chromatographic plates were prewetted/conditioned for 2 min with the mobile phase. The electrical potential used was equal to 1000 V (for the mobile phase containing methanol and ammonium acetate) [4], 400 V (for the mobile phase containing methanol and TFA) or 600 V (for the mobile phase containing propanol and TFA) [20]. The development time was 15 min. Adsorbent layer of the chromatographic plate was pressurized by an external pressure equal to 20 bar. The temperature of separation was set to 25 °C. As the current PPEC equipment enables separation in one direction only in the same time—toward the cathode or the anode (sample application position is 15 cm from the lower edge of the chromatographic plate). The two groups of peptides migrating in opposite directions (here at high pH) were separated and registered in individual subsequent experiments. It was possible due to inversion of polarization of the electrodes.
Detection of Peptides and Determination of Their Retardation Factor/Migration Distance
After development, chromatographic plates were dried at room temperature, then dipped (for about 2 s) in 2% (w/v) ninhydrin solution in acetone/methanol/glacial acetic acid (125/125/10 v/v/v) as described elsewhere [23]. After that, the plates were dried and kept in darkness at room temperature till distinct peptide zones appeared (usually, for good detection—till the next day). Then they were scanned with TLC Scanner 4 at 520 nm wavelength and imaged using TLC Visualizer from CAMAG (Muttenz, Switzerland). Migration distance values were obtained automatically using winCATS software. Mean Rf and migration distance values have been calculated on the basis of the results obtained in three independent experiments. For HPTLC, the majority of the data obtained was in the range ± 1% of mean Rf value; however, the maximum error was ± 3%. For PPEC, majority of the data obtained was in the range ± 2% of mean migration distance and the maximum error was ± 7%.
Results and Discussion
On the basis of our previous research, we have selected a few separation systems of relatively good separation selectivity of the peptides with HPTLC [4, 6, 19] and PPEC [4, 20]. Figure 1 presents a correlation of the migration distances of the same solutes separated in similar HPTLC and PPEC systems. The diagrams can be considered as hypothetical 2D chromatograms/electrochromatograms. The results show that separation selectivity obtained with PPEC is clearly different than the one obtained with HPTLC. Comparison of the NP-HPTLC and NP-PPEC systems shows that the differences in selectivity are quite significant, despite the difference between extreme (the highest and the lowest) migration distances of solutes is rather moderate (about 50 mm for HPTLC and about 35 mm for PPEC; Fig. 1a). Only one point of peptide no. 14 is located on the diagonal of hypothetical chromatogram, while the remaining peptide points are distributed outside the diagonal. The comparison of the RP-HPTLC and RP-PPEC systems with methanol as the mobile phase component shows greater difference between the extreme migration distances (about 70 mm for HPTLC and 45 mm for PPEC); however, the difference in selectivity between the systems is somewhat smaller (more peptide points are distributed near the diagonal; Fig. 2b). Relatively great difference between the extreme migration distances (65 mm for HPTLC and 65 mm for PPEC) and significant change of selectivity (no peptide points are on the diagonal) can be obtained in the RP systems, when propanol is used instead of methanol as the mobile phase component (Fig. 2c). The greatest difference between the extreme migration distances (60 mm for HPTLC and 75 mm for PPEC) and significant difference in selectivity can be also observed when the NP-HPTLC and NP-PPEC systems with the mobile phase of high pH (11.0), Fig. 1d, are compared. Here, good separation selectivity of PPEC results from the fact that at high pH some peptides migrates toward the cathode, while some others migrate toward the anode—against the electroosmotic flow of the mobile phase [4].
The results suggest that the combination of the HPTLC and PPEC systems mentioned may be used for efficient 2D separation of peptides. However, as we have shown before [20], the extensive tailing of peptide zones occurred, when the mobile phase of low pH (addition of ion-pairing acid) was used. Contrary to HPTLC, in PPEC reduction of this tailing requires very high concentration of ion-pairing reagents (e.g. about 500 mM of TFA) in the mobile phase. This may be a serious problem, especially in RP-PPEC, because high concentration of both: water and ion-pairing reagent results in high electric current and extensive Joule’s heating, as discussed elsewhere [4]. Therefore, despite the good selectivity, the use of the 2D separation systems considered (Fig. 1a–c) cannot guarantee to obtain high resolution of final separation. On the contrary, both: HPTLC and PPEC systems compared in Fig. 1d provide high separation efficiency (narrow peptide zones [4]). Therefore, combination of HPTLC and PPEC with such separation conditions can be supposed to provide efficient 2D separation of peptides.
Figure 1 presents comparison of similar HPTLC and PPEC systems. Naturally, it is possible to combine various HPTLC and PPEC systems. As we have shown in our previous papers [6, 7], it is possible to obtain significant change of selectivity of peptide separation with the inversion of separation system type (NP/RP). With such inversion, applying the electric field may result in farther/additional change of separation selectivity. As both separation systems presented above, RP (Fig. 1b) and NP (Fig. 1d), provide high efficiency of separation [4, 6] their combination can be supposed to provide also efficient 2D peptide separation. Figure 2a presents hypothetical 2D separation (or correlation of migration distances) of the solutes investigated with the systems mentioned. Figure 2b presents the comparison of migration distances of the solutes under similar conditions, however, when methanol is replaced with propanol in RP-HPTLC. This provides some additional change of selectivity with respect to the one presented in Fig. 2a. The results show that combination of various HPTLC and PPEC systems may provide even greater change of selectivity, and even better 2D separation of peptides, than combination of the similar or identical systems. Unfortunately, for now, we are unable to obtain such separations, as our current PPEC equipment does not enable to separate solutes in two opposite directions (toward the anode and toward the cathode) simultaneously. In our current equipment samples can be applied only along the start line 15 cm from the lower edge of the plate. This results from the construction of PPEC chamber—especially from the position of the partition covering the starting sample spots during prewetting of the adsorbent layer, and from the position of the cover pressurizing the chromatographic plate [21]. We have suggested usefulness of the construction change of the equipment before in this regard [4].
Conclusions
The same HPTLC and PPEC systems provide quite different selectivity of peptide separation. This is due to the share of electrophoresis in PPEC system. Combination of similar HPTLC and PPEC systems may be used for 2D separation of peptides, with good overall selectivity. Even better selectivity of separation may be obtained by combining of various HPTLC and PPEC systems (e.g. NP/RP). However, combination of the same HPTLC and PPEC systems in 2D separation should be used with care (or should be avoided) because under some conditions the later can provide lower efficiency than the former. Our results also suggest that the best final selectivity of peptide separation (and to our current knowledge—also the highest efficiency of separation) can be obtained if PPEC separation is carried out at high pH of the mobile phase, in the two opposite directions (toward the anode and toward the cathode) simultaneously. Anyway, such separation requires construction of a special PPEC equipment.
References
Urbanova I, Svec F (2011) Monolithic polymer layer with gradient of hydrophobicity for separation of peptides using two-dimensional thin layer chromatography and MALDI-TOF-MS detection. J Sep Sci 856:3445–3448
Shahidi F, Amarowicz R (1996) Antioxidant activity of protein hydrolyzates from aquatic species. J Am Oil Chem Soc 73:1197–1199
Pasilis SP, Kertesz V, van Berkel GJ et al (2008) HPTLC/DESI-MS imaging of tryptic protein digests separated in two dimensions. J Mass Spectrom 43:1627–1635
Gwarda RŁ, Dzido TH (2018) The influence of pH on retention and migration of peptides in systems with octadecyl silica-based adsorbent by high-performance thin-layer chromatography and pressurized planar electrochromatography techniques. J Chromatogr A 1534:179–187
Han Y, Levkin P, Abarientos I et al (2010) Monolithic superhydrophobic polymer layer with photopatterned virtual channel for the separation of peptides using two-dimensional thin layer chromatography-desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 82:2520–2528
Gwarda RŁ, Aletańska-Kozak M, Matosiuk D, Dzido TH (2016) Inversion of type of separation system in planar chromatography of peptides, using C18 silica-based adsorbents. J Chromatogr A 1440:240–248
Gwarda RŁ, Dzido TH (2013) Two-dimensional high-performance thin-layer chromatography of tryptic bovine albumin digest using normal- and reverse-phase systems with silanized silica stationary phase. J Chromatogr A 1312:152–154
Katz AM, Dreyer WJ, Anfinsen CB (1959) Peptide separation by two-dimensional chromatography and electrophoresis. J Biol Chem 234:2897–2900
Watanabe S, Yoshida A (1971) Micro-scale peptide mapping method for identification of variant proteins. Biochem Genet 5:541–547
Kochin V, Imanishi SY, Eriksson JE (2006) Fast track to a phosphoprotein sketch—MALDI-TOF characterization of TLC-based tryptic phosphopeptide maps at femtomolar detection sensitivity. Proteomics 6:5676–5682
Panchagnula V, Mikulskis A, Song L et al (2007) Phosphopeptide analysis by directly coupling two-dimensional planar electrochromatography/thin-layer chromatography with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1155:112–123
Nurok D, Koers JM, Novotny AL et al (2004) Apparatus and initial results for pressurized planar electrochromatography. Anal Chem 76:1690–1695
Dzido TH, Płocharz PW, Chomicki A et al (2011) Pressurized planar electrochromatography. J Chromatogr A 1218:2636–2647
Novotny AL, Nurok D, Replogle RW et al (2006) Results with an apparatus for pressurized planar electrochromatography. Anal Chem 78:2823–2831
Hałka-Grysińska A, Gwarda RŁ, Dzido TH (2014) Pressurized planar electrochromatography. In: Poole CF (ed) Instrumental thin-layer chromatography. Elsevier, Burlington, pp 135–165
Hałka-Grysińska A, Gwarda RŁ, Dzido TH (2015) Planar chromatography using electro-osmotic flow. In: Tyihák E (ed) Forced-flow layer chromatography. Elsevier, Waltham, pp 223–283
Polak B, Gwarda RŁ, Kopciał E, Dzido TH (2014) Chambers, sample application, and new devices in the chromatography of drugs. In: Komsta Ł, Waksmundzka-Hajnos M, Sherma J (eds) Thin layer chromatography in drug analysis. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, pp 131–146
Gwarda RŁ, Tomczyszyn A, Misicka A, Dzido TH (2015) Retention and separation efficiency of some synthetic oligopeptides in reversed-phase thin-layer chromatography. Acta Chromatogr 27:1–14
Gwarda RŁ, Aletańska-Kozak M, Klimek-Turek A et al (2016) Influence of carboxylic ion-pairing reagents on retention of peptides in thin-layer chromatography systems with C18 silica-based adsorbents. J Chromatogr A 1440:229–239
Gwarda RŁ, Dzido TH (2018) The influence of addition of ion-pairing acid and organic modifier of the mobile phase on retention and migration of peptides in pressurized planar electrochromatography system with octadecyl silica-based adsorbent. J Chromatogr A 1558:77–84
Gwarda RŁ, Dzido TH (2016) The modification of pressurized planar electrochromatography chamber in respect of reduction of dead volume in the separation system. J Planar Chromatogr Mod TLC 29:72–76
Hałka A, Płocharz P, Torbicz A, Dzido TH (2010) Reversed-phase pressurized planar electrochromatography and planar chromatography of acetylsalicylic acid, caffeine, and acetaminophen. J Planar Chromatogr Mod TLC 23:420–425
Gwarda RŁ, Tomczyszyn A, Misicka A, Dzido TH (2013) Staining of some synthetic oligopeptides using ninhydrin solution. J Planar Chromatogr Mod TLC 26:455–456
Acknowledgements
The paper was developed using the equipment purchased within the agreement No. POPW.01.03.00-06-010/09-00 Operational Program Development of Eastern Poland 2007–2013, Priority Axis I, Modern Economy, Operations 1.3. Innovations Promotion.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Gwarda, R.Ł., Dzido, T.H. Correlation of Migration Distance of Peptides in High-Performance Thin-Layer Chromatography and Pressurized Planar Electrochromatography Systems. Chromatographia 81, 1589–1594 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-018-3602-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-018-3602-5